Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

On-farm Evaluation of Female Calf Production Through Assisted Reproduction in Improving Smallholder Dairying in Mirab Azerinet Woreda, South Region, Ethiopia

Atinafu Assefa, Fikadu Amare, Tafesse Makebo, Ebadu Areb

Abstract


In dairy industries production of a heifer for herd replacement and to increase income is a key component. This study was planned to compare artificial insemination (AI) efficiency by using sexed (sex-sorted) semen and conventional semen types and to develop ideas in the production scheme of replacement female calves. Data had been gathered from January 2018 up to December 2019 on 846 inseminations in non-pregnant indigenous cows and heifers. There becomes a significantly different (P<0.05) conception rate between sexed and conventional semen which was 48.22% and 77.78% correspondingly. Using sexed semen 76.96% of cows gave birth to female calves while the female calves were 33.43% from conventional semen. There was a lower risk of calving difficulty (dystocia) in sexed semen (23.52%) than in conventional semen (47.72%). Using sexed semen can improve the dairy sector by producing female calves required by the majority of smallholder farmers. In the current situation of the study area the expensiveness and inaccessibility of sexed semen result reduction in income. Even though lower conception rate but a lower risk of calving problems (dystocia) and higher production of female calves; sexed (sex-sorted) semen could be suggested for insemination of indigenous cows and heifers to increase the number of cross-bred cows and boost the dairy sectors in general. The concerned authorities should work together to increase the supply of sexed semen and intervene to get smallholders by reasonable price.


Keywords


Conventional semen, dystocia, Mirab Azerinet, sexed semen, Heifer, dairy sector, semen, calves, insemination

Full Text:

PDF

References


Galma Boneya. Sexed semen and major factors affecting its conception rate in dairy cattle. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. 2021.;8(1):99–107.

Rath D, Ruiz S, Sieg B. Birth of female piglets following intrauterine insemination of a sow using flow cytometrically sexed boar semen. 2003;152: 400–401.

Seidel Jr GE. Overview of sexing sperm. Theriogenol. 2007; 68: 443 446.

DeVries, A., M. Overton, J. Fetrow, K. Leslie, S. Eicker, and G. Rogers. Exploring the impact of sexed semen on the structure of the dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci. 2008;91:847–856.

Heshmati A, Yoon H, editors. Economic growth and development in Ethiopia. Springer Singapore; 2018 Apr 27.

Razmkabir M. A field study on the reproductive efficiency of sex-sorted semen in Holstein heifers. J. Lives. Sci. and Tech. 2018;6(2):41–46.

Peres AR, Ifran AM, de Lima MR, Rossi GF, Corrêa RR, Garcia JM. Conception rate of lactating cows and heifers (Bos taurus X Bos indicus) for sexed and conventional semen in artificial insemination. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Veterinária. 2016;23(3–4).

Norman, HD., Hutchison, JL., Miller, RH. Use of sexed semen and its effect on Conception rate, calf sex, dystocia, and stillbirth of Holsteins in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 2010; 93: 3880–3890.

Saheren Joezy-Shekalgorab, Ali Maghsoud and Mohammad RezaMansourian. Reproductive performance of sexed versus conventional semen in Holstein heifers in various semiarid regions

of Iran. Italian J. Anim. Sci. 2017;16 (4): 666–672

Weigel KA. Exploring the role of sexed semen in dairy production systems. Journal of Dairy Science. 2004 Jul 1;87:E120–30.

Seidel, G. E. Jr.. Economics of selecting for sex: The most important genetic trait. Theriogenology 2003;59:585–598.

Tubman LM, Brink Z, Suh TK, Seidel Jr GE. Characteristics of calves produced with sperm sexed by flow cytometry/cell sorting. Journal of animal science. 2004 Apr 1;82(4):1029–36.

Seidel Jr. Update on sexed semen technology in cattle. Animal 2014;8: 160 164.

Ebadu Areb.. Assessment of factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of synchronization based breed improvement schemes. J. Bio, Agri and Health care. 2016; 6(7):9–103.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.37591/rrjodst.v11i3.3585

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.